So hey. It’s been a while.

I haven’t been sewing, because Real Life has been eating into my free time something fierce. I realized at the end of July that I needed to find a new job. Not because I’d lost the old one, but because it was not working in so many different ways all at once that the rest of my life was becoming unworkable. Have you ever had a job like that, Dear Readers? Where one day you realize that, yes, they are paying you–but it’s not the job you signed up for, you’re not doing the work you agreed to do, and not only have things not been getting better, but there are no plans on the horizon that will result in things getting better, nor any realization that they should?

I had such an epiphany at the end of July, which is why after the completion of the dragon shirts, I pretty well disappeared. I did everything I could think of–reached out to former clients, applied for jobs, signed up for volunteering gigs, showed up for community and networking events, and did a pile of research on self-employment.

Two of the very first things I did–the second job I applied to and the first former client I spoke with–panned out in a really spectacular fashion just when I needed them most. But let me backtrack a little on that job application, because it’s funny:

City job, close to home, fewer hours than I am currently working, unionized so better benefits, pay cut but not an unmanageable one, working in air quality and climate change, which as you likely know are both near and dear to my heart. Applied end of July and heard nothing for months. Gave it up for dead, as one does. At the beginning of October, they called me in for an interview.

The week before the interview, Frances got sick. Then she kindly shared her cold with me, bless her heart. So picture me, the morning of the interview, wearing my suit with the citron silk-cotton blouse, filled with enough Tylenol cold medication to fell an elephant, and awake only in a technical sense, at a government interview. Have you ever been to a government interview? It is not a conversation. It is a test. (They’ll try to reassure you that it’s a conversation, but don’t be fooled.) There are questions on sheets of paper with checklists which you can see the interviewer checking off, or not, as you answer them; so the temptation is to just dump your entire brain on the table in a big gelatinous heap, in the hopes that the next thing you think to say will get another item or two ticked off. Everything is scored and the candidate with the best score gets the job offer. I was barely conscious and full of drugs and yet I managed to fill 90 minutes answering seven questions. At the end, with all my nerve endings dead from the neck up, I staggered down to my car and laughed and laughed. Well, I thought, I’ll call back in a few weeks and when they tell me I didn’t get it I’ll ask them for tips for next time, and apply for the next job that comes up. Oh my god. Was I even speaking english? What did I even say?

Then I went home and slept for three hours.

Precisely eight days later, I was laid off.

There are a number of things which I could say about this in a more private setting. I can’t say it was a complete surprise, given that I’d had very little to do for a very long time, and in a consulting environment the lack of billable hours is a killer, but the timing was surprising–I had no warning at all.

The day before I was laid off, the former client emailed me about some freelance work.

The day after I was laid off, my references told me that the City was calling them; and then the day after that they offered me the job. “You interviewed so well! We were so impressed! We’d be really lucky to have you!”

I laughed, Dear Readers. I honestly have no recollection anymore of what exactly I said, except for my very distinct impression that what I was saying was completely wrong. But hey, who am I to contradict them? They offered me a job I really wanted and the timing could not have been better. Yes, if it had come through sooner, I would not have been laid off; but I also would not have received severance pay. It should be enough to finish paying off the furnace and get me completely out of debt (except for, you know, the mortgage), and I should be able to freelance for that former client at the same time. So.

Since finding out about the contract offer and the job offer, I’ve finished a muslin shirt for Frances (that will double as part of her Hallowe’en costume), a bamboo knit drapey t-shirt, a new Linden for me, an embellished Renfrew, a new button-up blouse for me, planned as part of my First Day of the New Job Outfit (I can’t be the only person who does this), and a first go of the StyleArc Polly top. I’m going to have a solid month off before the new job–paid–in which I plan to cram as many of Frances’s appointments and tests as possible. And I’m going to see friends. And sleep. And read. And sew. I’m going to make a new pair of pants to go with the new shirt, as well as some knit shirts for myself and my girl, and I may try tackling pants for Frances again. And then I’m going to start a new job while the old one is technically still paying me.

It’s my untested belief that expertise in any technical field will result in a near-total loss of respect for journalism.

I know it did for me. The more I learned about climate change, the biodiversity crisis, environmental regulations, and renewable energy, the more I realized that newspaper articles reflected reality only by chance, in passing. More often, an ill-equipped person with good writing skills and no critical thinking ability would write a piece far outside of their education and background by interviewing a bunch of people who claimed to be experts, without evaluating their credentials. We get climate change pieces giving equal weight to well-respected international climate experts and oil-funded PR hacks, pieces on renewable energy with well-reasoned arguments by scientists quoting the best available information and fruit-loop arguments by naturopaths who wouldn’t recognize a herz if it came up and hit them on the head.

And you end up with a voting public almost completely muddled on key issues because they’ve come to the completely totally 100% incontrovertibly WRONG conclusion that there are two sides.

Of course people are entitled to their opinions. I am legally well within my rights to believe that Mars is peopled by winged skeletons who worship Lily Allen. But the legal right to hold an opinion is not the same, and can’t be the same, as the attitude that reality is then required to bend to accommodate that opinion. No matter what I believe, Mars is in fact NOT peopled by winged skeletons who worship Lily Allen, or by anything at all. The experts are right and I am just plain wrong. (Or I would be, if I held that opinion.)

This set of science experiments sheds some light on the psychology of our inherent tendency to give equal weight to two contrary opinions, even when one comes from an expert and the other does not. Fortunately, for those of you who have no intention of purchasing the article for the low-low price of $10, you can also read this fun summation in the Washington Post.

This went on for 256 intervals, so the two individuals got to know each other quite well — and to know one another’s accuracy and skill quite well. Thus, if one member of the group was better than the other, both would pretty clearly notice. And a rational decision, you might think, would be for the less accurate group member to begin to favor the views of the more accurate one — and for the accurate one to favor his or her own assessments.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, report the study authors, “the worse members of each dyad underweighted their partner’s opinion (i.e., assigned less weight to their partner’s opinion than recommended by the optimal model), whereas the better members of each dyad overweighted their partner’s opinion.” Or to put it more bluntly, individuals tended to act “as if they were as good or as bad as their partner” — even when they quite obviously weren’t.

The researchers tried several variations on the experiment, and this “equality bias” didn’t go away. In one case, a “running score” reminded both members of the pair who was faring better (and who worse) at identifying the target — just in case it wasn’t obvious enough already. In another case, the task became much more difficult for one group member than the other, leading to a bigger gap in scores — accentuating differences in performance. And finally, in a third variant, actual money was offered for getting it right.

None of this did away with the “equality bias.”

The research psychologists attribute this to our need to belong to groups and get along with people. It seems that need outweighs any practical consideration, a good deal of the time, including when money is on the line. Fascinating, right? People who are right and know they’re right defer to people they know are wrong in order to get along and maintain group dynamics, even when it costs them to do so.

When it comes to climate change, this is a serious problem.

Aside: Climate change is a real thing that is really happening and is a complete and total catastrophe. There is no debate on this point in any credible scientific circle. If you think that there is, I’m so sorry, but you’ve been had.

/aside

We end up not moving forward with policy solutions because we keep acting like the actual experts and the paid non-expert hacks share some kind of equivalence when they patently don’t.

But–and I’m sure I’m not the only person thinking this–it’s present in every community, including the SBC.

Ah! See? I told you I’d come around to it.

People act as if the opinions and contributions of experts and amateurs are equivalent when they are not.

Thankfully, the fates of human civilization and a minimum of 30% of animal and plant species do not rest on this fact. The worst that happens in most cases is that a person walks around for a good long time in a garment that looks like utter shit and feels really fabulous about it. On a scale of worldwide catastrophe, it doesn’t even rank.

On the other hand, as this science makes pretty clear, an entire generation of sewers are being educated largely by internet celebrities who are too incompetent even to understand how incompetent they are. It’s not a catastrophe, no, but it is a crying shame. And as predicted by the social psychologists, if anyone ever speaks up to point out that some of them are experts and other are, well … not …, they are pilloried as Mean Girls, jelluz haterz, and bullies.

Aside 2: Yep, I count myself in the group of people sometimes wandering happily about in a garment that on later reflection was not up to snuff. It happens. We’re all human. I won’t melt if someone points it out, though tact is always preferred. It doesn’t count as “bravery” to “put yourself out there” if you feel entitled to nothing but praise; and if you’re going to present your work in public you need to be prepared for public criticism.

/aside

So it’s not the end of the world, no, but it’s a detriment to all of us. The people getting the money, in many cases, haven’t earned it; the people with valuable skills to share don’t have the platform to do so; we keep acting as if everyone’s equal when they’re not to be Nice and keep everyone happy, even though not everyone is happy; there are entire boiling lava rivers of resentment and bitterness flowing right under all the green meadows we’re so happily skipping over (in our badly-pressed culottes and boxy tops with peter pan collars, no less). It’s weird. Can’t we, as an online culture, agree that it’s not a violation of the Geneva Convention if someone points out that a hem is crooked or a print isn’t matched? Does it matter if it’s not “nice”? Don’t we all benefit from increased honesty and openness? Do any of us actually expect to be perfect, or need to be treated as if we are perfect in order to function day to day? If you really don’t want people to point out how you fucked up, is it so much to ask that you acknowledge it yourself, then? Hey look at this horrible side seam–I really fucked up!

That went off on a bit of a tangent. Pardon me. Let’s drag it back on track:

The Equality Bias! It makes everything worse while we smile and pretend nothing’s wrong. Fight it!

Naomi’s political lens is so focused that it’s blinding. This is less a book about climate change than it is about why climate change is now the perfect excuse to do everything she’s always wanted to do anyway (eg. scrap globalization, redistribute wealth), which is fine, but she ignores any contrary evidence. For example, she has a brief section on the brief flourishing and untimely death of Ontario’s green energy economy, which she blames 100% on the WTO’s decision on domestic content. The waffling and delays of government regulators on applications, the constant changes in direction, and the dead-set-contrarian politics of the mostly rural ridings where wind energy projects were to be sited were completely overlooked, but as anyone who actually went through the process can tell you, the domestic content reg change was the least of any developer’s worries, and came after years and years of frustrations brought about by the public sector.

She spends a great deal of time criticizing anyone else whose political perspectives change how they perceive climate science and solutions, but is much, much worse herself in this book. No information penetrates unless it conforms with her pre-existing beliefs. But the global carbon cycle is not sentient. It doesn’t care how carbon emissions are reduced; it doesn’t even care if they are reduced at all. It does not vote and has no political preferences. WE do; and so it’s up to us to make some decisions about if and how we’re going to turn things around. It should be a mark of deep shame to any thinking citizen in a democratic society that authoritarian China is pulling so far ahead in the transition to a renewable economy.

The flaws with This Changes Everything can be boiled down to two, major, fundamental issues:

1. She acts as if the private and public spheres were diametric and opposed, rather than almost entirely overlapping. A person who works all day in a corporation then goes home and becomes a voter and consumer. People move back and forth between the private and public sector in terms of employment all the time. We are not talking about two different species–the private, evil homo sapiens determined to ruin the earth at a profit and the loving, public homo sapiens trying desperately to save it. It’s all just people.

2. The public sphere is as complicit in this as the private sphere. The reason we do not have a healthy, thriving renewable energy sector in Ontario right now is because the people of Ontario didn’t want it. They had it, and then put the politicians of the province under so much pressure to gut it that eventually they did to save their mandate. The moratorium on offshore wind projects in Ontario is a perfect example: two (small) corporations were all set to do the assessment work necessary to figure out if their Lake Ontario projects would work or not, but the government made offshore projects in Ontario illegal because the voters in Scarborough demanded it.

This is a terrible book on climate change. You’d be better off reading almost anything else on the subject.